Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV10717, Date: 2024-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10717    Hearing Date: February 21, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Ernesto Flores and Nayeli Quiroz .

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

This case arises out of an incident on May 14, 2021, in which Plaintiff Ernesto Flores allegedly suffered injuries from an electrocution.  On May 12, 2023, Plaintiffs Ernesto Flores and Nayeli Quiroz (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed their complaint against Brian R. Stalker, Elizabeth H. Stalker, Johnson Electric, Kenneth Johnson, TGNPM, and Does 1 to 100, asserting causes of action or premises liability and general negligence. 

Defendants Brian R. Stalker and Elizabeth H. Stalker (collectively, the “Stalkers”) filed their answer on September 15, 2023.

On October 6, 2023, Defendant Johnson Electric and Kenneth Johnson (collectively, the “Johnson Defendants”) filed a motion to strike certain allegations in the complaint.  On November 6, 2023, the Johnson Defendants filed a notice taking their motion off calendar.  The Johnson Defendants have not filed an answer.

On January 19, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).  The proposed FAC adds 19 causes of action arising out of the same incident but does not add any new parties.  (Jacobs Decl., Exh. 1.)

The Johnson Defendants filed an opposition to the motion on February 6, 2024.  Plaintiffs filed their reply on February 13.

Legal Standard

CCP § 473(a)(1) provides, in relevant part:  “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.  The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.” 

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)  Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.  The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment.  (See California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281, overruled on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390.)

California Rule of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (a) provides that a motion to amend a pleading must (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.  Subdivision (b) requires a declaration that specifies (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. 

Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial.  In most cases, the factors for timeliness are: (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party.  If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend.  (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)  Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery.  (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)

Discussion

Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their complaint to add 19 new causes of action, numbered 3-21 as follows: (3) IIED, (4) NIED, (5) Fraud - Intentional Misrepresentation, (6) Fraud - Concealment, (7) Fraud - False Promise, (8) Constructive Fraud, (9) Negligent Misrepresentation, (10) Breach of Written Contract, (11) Breach of Oral Contract, (12) Breach of Implied Contract, (13) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (14) Promissory Estoppel, (15) Breach of Warranty of Habitability, (16) Breach of Duty to Maintain Habitable Conditions, (17) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, (18) Public Nuisance, (19) Private Nuisance, (20) Unfair Business Practices, and (21) Loss of Consortium. Plaintiffs contend that this amendment will them to pursue all their theories of liability in a single action, as all the additional claims are based on the same incident as alleged in the original complaint.

Plaintiffs’ counsel states in her declaration that the facts giving rise to the new allegations and causes of action were discovered as a result of site inspections in October and December 2023 and subsequent research and investigation.  (Jacobs Decl., ¶ 9.)

The case is not yet at issue.  The Johnson Defendants have appeared but have not filed an answer.  Named Defendant TGNPM has not appeared.

The Court has carefully considered the arguments from both sides and finds that there is good cause to grant the motion for leave to amend.  The proposed FAC adds a substantial number of additional legal theories of recovery, but all of the new causes of action arise out of the same incident and involve the same parties.  The case is at a preliminary stage, and there has been no showing of any undue or unfair prejudice to the Johnson Defendants if leave to amend is granted.  Any arguments regarding the sufficiency of the new allegations may be raised through a demurrer or motion to strike.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to file the First Amended Complaint attached to their moving papers within 10 days.

Moving Party is to give notice.